IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ROCK HILL DIVISION

Denyatta Raymond Mackins, Civil Action No. 0:24-cv-3619-CMC

Plaintiff, vs. ORDER

Special Agent Steven Kirk and Officer Matthew Earls,

Defendant.

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Complaint. ECF No. 1. In accordance with

(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges for pre-trial proceedings. On October 21, 2025, the Magistrate Judge issued an Amended Report and Recommendation (“Report”) recommending Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted and this case be dismissed in full. ECF No. 92.1 The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so. Plaintiff failed to file objections, and the time to do so has expired. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. See Mathews v. Weber,

(1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of any portion of the Report of the Magistrate Judge to which a specific objection

1 The Magistrate Judge previously entered two other Reports, which differed in some respects, although all recommended dismissal. ECF Nos. 87, 90. The Amended Report at ECF No. 92 is the most recently filed, and operative, Report. is made. The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See

(b). The court is required to review the Report only for clear error in the absence of an objection. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005)

(stating that “in the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”) (citation omitted). After a review of the record, the applicable law, and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the court finds no clear error, and agrees this matter should be dismissed. Accordingly, the court adopts the Amended Report filed at ECF No. 92 by reference in this Order.2 Defendant Kirk’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 82) is granted, and the claims against him are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant Earls are dismissed with prejudice for the same reasons as those against Defendant Kirk: there has been no violation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights.

IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Cameron McGowan Currie CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE Senior United States District Judge Columbia, South Carolina November 25, 2025 2 The court finds the previous Reports, filed at ECF Nos. 87 and 90, moot. 2